page 21

Debate.

The Debating Contest for the Joynt Challenge Scroll was held in the Town Hall Concert Chamber on the evening of Easter Saturday. There was a large attendance of students from the four Colleges and of the general public.

Mr. J. S. Stanton presided until the arrival of the Mayor, Mr. Gunson, who had been unavoidably detained. The judges were the Rev. W. G. Monckton and Messrs. A. H. Johnstone and E. Aldridjge, and the subject of the debate: "That rights of selfgovernment, similar to those enjoyed by the selfgoverning Dominions should be granted to India"

The first debate was contested by Canterbury College for the affirmative, and Auckland University for the negative. Mr. K. G. Archer, the opening speaker for Canterbury, proceeded to show that India was now ready to govern herself, and that it was only just that she should have the same measure of political freedom as the remainder of the Empire. Unfortunately for Mr. Archer, the audience now proceeded to take a truly active interest in the debate. Every now and then during a lull in the storm, the speaker managed to get a few words in, but it is to be feared that the force of his argument was considerably weakened by the interruptions. In spite of this very considerable disadvantage, Mr. Archer's speech was very good. His words were well chosen, and his arguments simple and logical. Mr. Archer's experience in the last two tournaments no doubt stood him in good stead.

Mr. P. O. Veale, the first speaker for the Auckland College, met with the same reception as Mr. Archer, but he also managed to weather the storm. The subject matter of his speech was mostly good, and his arguments clearly presented. His delivery, however, lacked slightly in force and expression, and he failed to convince his audience as Mr. Archer had done.

Mr. J. Batchelor, Canterbury's second speaker, proceeded to show-whenever the audience would permit him—that the granting of political freedom to India was now quite practicable. Mr. Batchelor spoke with plenty of emphasis and energy, and quickly secured the attention of his audience. He would have been still more effective had he moved about less.

Auckland's second speaker, Mr. A. G. Davis, had unfortunately been taken ill shortly before the debate, and his place was taken by Mr. A. K. Turner. Considering that Mr. Turner had to prepare his speech on very short notice, his effort was very creditable. It was in his criticism of Mr. Batchelor's arguments that the lack of preparation was most noticeable. In this part of his speech Mr. Turner showed a tendency to repeat himself and to overwork his arguments.

The second debate was between Victoria College (affirmative) and Otago University (negative). Mr. J. W. G. Davidson, the opening speaker, made quite a good case for the affirmative. The people of India, he said, were clamouring for the right to govern themselves. If Great Britain refused to grant this right there was grave danger of another Indian Mutiny. Mr. Davidson's weakness was a lack of emphasis and a failure to vary the pitch of the voice. Although some of his arguments were not very sound, most of his subject matter was good. He spent far too long in discussing the Indian land tax law, which was rather a byway of the subject. Above all, he was very earnest and obviously believed in his subject.

page 22

Mr. J. H. Coombes, for the negative, admitted the justice of some of the claims put forward by Mr. Davidson, but contended that they were impracticable. He then elaborated several serious obstacles to the granting of self government. The people of India, he said, were nearly all uneducated, and took absolutely no interest in matters political. An election which had been tried by way of experiment in one of the large towns had been a dismal failure. It was not the great mass of the Indian people who were demanding self government but a very small minority, composed mostly of malcontents. Mr. Coombes's speech was very well arranged, and was spoken clearly and emphatically. Many of his arguments were unanswerable.

This fact, however, did not prevent Mr. W. A. Sheat, Victoria's second speaker, from making a determined attack upon them. Indeed, more than ten minutes of the allotted time had passed before Mr. Coombes was left in peace. What Mr. Davidson lacked in vigour Mr. Sheat more than made up for. Were Mr. Sheat a little less aggressive, his words would carry considerably more weight. Graceful gesture and a less hesitating flow of words are essential for a vigorous speaker, but these will doubtless come with time.

The last debater was Mr. W. M. Ryburn of Otago University In direct contrast to Mr. Sheat he spoke clearly and deliberately, and gave one the impression that he would be able to substantiate all his arguments. Even in his criticism of the statements of the Victoria College speakers, he showed a thorough grasp of his subject. He pointed out the great difficulty of caste. The people of India are divided into a number of castes, which could not unite even for the purposes of government. The Indian people as a whole desired no alteration to the present system. The trouble was being caused by a few malcontents who were stirring up the people for their own selfish purposes. Although Mr. Ryburn's delivery was not quite so good as that of Mr. Archer or Mr. Batchelor, his speech was probably the best of the evening.

While the judges were deliberating Messrs. Dickinson, De la Mare, Thomas, and the Chairman made reference to the disturbances of the early part of the debate. Mr. Thomas, who had previously informed us, amongst interruptions that "His Worship the Mayor—has been—unavoidably detained—by an accident—to his—motor-car," rather marred the solemnity of his speech by walking over the edge of the platform.

In announcing the decision of the judges, the Rev. W. G. Monckton said that some little time had been spent by them in deliberation, as it had not been easy to come to a decision. Eventually the judges had decided that in the first debate Canterbury had beaten Auckland, and that in the second debate Otago had beaten Wellington. Finally it had been agreed that Canterbury had defeated Otago, though only by a little.

On the motion of Mr. X. R. W. Thomas, votes of thanks were accorded to Mr. Gunson, Mr. Stanton, and the Mayor. Cheers for the Canterbury College debaters concluded the gathering.

* * * *

During the last few years the Tournament Debate has fallen into bad odour with the public, on account of the senseless disturbance that has been created by a section of the students. We are page 23 glad to say that the practice has been dying out among Victoria's representatives, and an article that appeared in these columns last year appears'to have found general acceptance.

At Auckland last Easter the question was again given great prominence. Owing to continuous uproar on the part of several students the first two speakers had great difficulty in making themselves heard. Mr. J. Stanton, who was then in the chair, was obliged to make several appeals for order. It was unfair, he said, that a few students should prevent the rest of the audience from hearing the speeches. At the beginning of Mr. Batchelor's speech the Mayor was compelled to make a final appeal for order, and at the end of the speech the interjectors left the hall en masse.

While the judges were considering their verdict several members of the audience spoke in condemnation of the disturbances, and their views were obviously shared by a large majority of those present.

Mr. J. o Dickinson considered that it was unfortunate that the earlier speakers had been heckled, while the later ones were free from interruption. This made it very difficult to judge impartially. In his opinion a little interjection tested the capabilities of a speaker, and should have been permitted.

Mr. J. H. Gunson stated that he did not object to a moderate amount of interjection, provided it was fair and relevant to the subject matter. There was, however, a limit to the right to interject and that limit had been reached when he appealed for order.

Mr. F. A. de la Mare pointed out that preventing a debater from making himself heard was just as unfair as jostling an athlete on the track or walking on a tennis court during a match. It was not as if "gagging" the speakers were a time honoured custom. Mr. de la Mare had been at fourteen Tournaments, and the practice had arisen only very recently. He also considered that the interjectors showed very bad form in leaving the hall as soon as they were worsted, thus making it clear that they had come to make a noise and not to hear the debate.

It should be stated in defence of the students that this year's debate was probably quieter than the three previous ones. At the same time, such disturbances as took place are unfair not only to the speakers, who are doing their best for their Colleges, but also to the audience. Animal spirits might be vented before the debate and between speeches, but while a speech is in progress common decency demands that concerted stunts should be barred, although humourous and terse interjections followed in silence can never be objected to.